Arlen Spector Becomes a Democrat

Senator Arlen Spector has stunned his Repubican cohorts by switching parties and becoming a Democrat. Once Norm Coleman gives up his lost cause against Al Franken, the magic number of 60 will have been reached. Here is his statement:

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

Texas Governor Threatens to Secede, Loses Budget

The Lone Star State is in Turmoil

Last week, as part of the Republican Party's thinly veiled "Tea Bag" parties, Texas Governor Rick Perry threatened to secede from the United States because he is "fed up" with the Federal government. Only in Bush Country! Waiting in the wings to run for President of Texas is Chuck Norris. No, I'm not making this stuff up. Here is Governor Perry with the sponsors and promoters of the Tea Bag movement, FOX NEWS:

Yesterday, Texas House members virtually wiped out Gov. Perry's office budget in order to help veterans and the mentally ill. With little debate, the House on a voice vote approved erasing 96 percent of the nearly $24 million that budget writers had recommended for Perry's office operation over the next two years. Some Democrats cast the House's move as a rebuke of the governor's recent comments about Texas seceding from the Union.

"That's the headline: 'Two days after governor says we ought to secede, House zeroes out the governor's budget,' " said Appropriations Committee vice chairman Richard Raymond, D-Laredo.

The raid on the governor's money came as the House debated a two-year, $178.4 billion budget that includes $11 billion of federal stimulus money but protects a state "rainy-day fund" expected to swell in two years to $9.1 billion.

On teacher merit pay, the House voted overwhelmingly to break a requirement that teachers be judged by their students' performance on standardized tests.

Instead, all decisions on incentive pay would be made by local school districts. Through their state formula funding, districts would get all $343 million that budget writers had recommended for merit pay. Texas has the nation's largest experiment with teacher merit pay, though teacher groups oppose it.

"It's probably how we should've done it in the first place," said Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio, author of the plan. It passed, 146-0.

Cuts to Perry's budget were proposed by House Democratic caucus chairwoman Jessica Farrar of Houston, who siphoned $4 million away for veterans' programs, and Rep. John Davis, R-Houston. He took $18.7 million more, for community mental health "crisis services" that try to keep the mentally ill out of jail and emergency rooms.

CLICK TO READ FULL STORY.

















Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

Public Health Insurance Option Key to Obama Healthcare Plan

If Congress passes Obama's plan and Americans are given the choice of a public health insurance option similar to Medicare, we could all save up to 30% on our health care premiums. That's a huge savings, and we'd still get high-quality coverage and be able to choose our doctors.

And even if you choose to keep your current insurance, you'd save anyway. HMOs and big insurance companies are the only game in town right now—so they overcharge us to boost profits and pay out CEO bonuses. If Obama's plan passes, they'd have to compete with it, and their prices would have to be more honest.

Lower premiums for us means lower profits for them, so insurance companies are putting extreme pressure on Congress to drop the public health insurance option. But Americans deserve to have this choice—and it's necessary to help rein in out-of-control health care costs.

Imagine how different things would be if we all had quality health care that costs up to 30% less than what we're paying now. Would you use the money toward college for a child? A safe retirement? Or maybe you'll finally be able to afford the treatment or medicines you need.

The simple truth is that having the choice of a public health insurance option would make all of our lives better. Here's why:

Health care costs are spiraling out of control. From 2000 to 2008, health insurance premiums increased five times faster than wages.

A public health insurance option would provide an affordable, quality alternative. Two new studies show that Americans could save 25% or more off of a traditional private plan. The New York Times says this would "keep the private plans honest."They'll have to lower rates and offer better value to compete.

Plus, a public health insurance option would be reliable coverage for all.

Private insurers are notorious for dumping people with little notice. A public option would allow consumers who've been dropped—or just don't like their current coverage—to switch to a steady public choice.

Thankfully, the public health insurance option is gaining steam in Congress. The 77-member Progressive Caucus recently endorsed the policy. And the chairmen of five critical congressional committees came out in support. Now we need to get the rest of Washington on board. Click below to

Tell Congress how the choice would help you.

Sources:

1."The Path to a High Performance U.S. Health System," The Commonwealth Fund, February 19, 2009

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51221&id=15917-8972352-4hapTax&t=5

2. "Health Insurance Costs Outpace Wages," WebMD, October 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51311&id=15917-8972352-4hapTax&t=6

3."The Path to a High Performance U.S. Health System," The Commonwealth Fund, February 19, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51221&id=15917-8972352-4hapTax&t=7

"The Cost and Coverage Impacts of a Public Plan: Alternative Design Options," The Lewin Group, April 6, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51315&id=15917-8972352-4hapTax&t=8

4."A Public Plan for Health Insurance?" The New York Times, April 6, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07tue1.html

5. "Obama Should Offer Public Health Insurance to All," The Progressive, March 13, 2009
http://www.progressive.org/mag/mpcastellblanch031309.html

6. "Progressive Caucus Draws a Line on Health Care," Open Left, April 2, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51313&id=15917-8972352-4hapTax&t=9

7. "Democrats Agree on a Health Plan: Now Comes the Hard Part," New York Times, March 31, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51314&id=15917-8972352-4hapTax&t=10

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

They Get Along -- Why Can't We?

Meet Gregory Pike — currently homeless in Santa Barbara, California — and his dog, cat and rat. Most days, Pike can be found on State Street there, along with his dog Booger, his cat Kitty, riding atop the dog, and his rat Mousey, riding atop the cat.

The Mayor of Santa Barbara reportedly found it so heartwarming a scene that she had it videotaped and sent it out as a holiday card. We find it to be right up there with the elephant and dog story out of Tennessee.

We also find it more than a little ironic that, if you go to the comments section beneath the dog-cat-rat-getting-along video on YouTube, you can find dozens of petty, mean-spirited, bickering comments from humans who seemingly can’t.

The best factual account of Pike and his animals we could find was in The Bottom Line, a bi-weekly newspaper sponsored by the Associated Students of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Pike, originally from Telluride, Colo., says he has been studying animal habitats and psychology for about 30 years, has worked with animal rescues and rehabilitation centers for mountain animals, and has a diverse background in animal training. Pike says the act started ten years ago “when someone said it couldn’t be done.” “I understand animals and why they do things. I understand some of the barks, and the meows, and what the different ways they do it mean. I’m not a Doctor Doolittle, but I know what they’re asking for.”

Pike told The Bottom Line that he has some insights into what makes people tick as well, and with his act hopes to be able to catch the attention of people to pass on his messages of peace and humanity to the human species. “Peace can happen anywhere — if they can do it why can’t people?” he said. Pike reportedly hopes to someday open a free pet adoption and rescue center, which is why he keeps a can out for money.

source: OmniDog


















Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved